3 ms·

None of the things you mention would have been enough to keep Netflix from eating their lunch.

msandford 12y ago
Wow, way to dress an opinion up as fact! If you watch only a few movies a month, Redbox is more economic than Netflix. If you only watch two movies per month, paying $3-$4 at Blockbuster is on par with Netflix. Sure Netflix economics are great if you already have broadband, have stopped paying for cable TV, and you hate driving to the places where Redbox has kiosks. But if any of those conditions aren't met, Netflix doesn't look quite as genius. Redbox "proves" that there is still demand for physical media rentals. Blockbuster had a kiosk at my local grocery store for a while and that meant I could return a movie or rent a new one every trip if I so desired at something like $1.50 a pop. That was pretty compelling. Even more compelling would have been a store with a couple of people who really knew movies and could recommend things and with a deep, deep back catalog. Cutting the customer-facing square footage in half would allow each and every store to pack damn near every movie ever made in. Yeah it might take a guy a minute or three to head to the back and pull the movie you're looking for, but it could be done. The ownership of the movies is a model that Netflix SORELY wishes they had at the moment. Netflix is publicly traded. And because they're publicly traded it means they have to file financials. And filing financials means a profit & loss kind of statement. And because Netflix doesn't actually OWN much IP, it means they have to rent or lease it. And that means the studios which own the IP that Netflix desperately needs to stay in business are perfectly informed of Netflix's financials. So they know just how much they can squeeze Netflix for every time a contract negotiation comes up. Blockbuster would not be in the same position because they would own the catalog. Purchases are expensive, but over any 20 year period they might be cheaper than renting.

Wow, way to dress an opinion up as fact! If you watch only a few movies a month, Redbox is more economic than Netflix. If you only watch two movies per month, paying $3-$4 at Blockbuster is on par with Netflix. Sure Netflix economics are great if you already have broadband, have stopped paying for cable TV, and you hate driving to the places where Redbox has kiosks. But if any of those conditions aren't met, Netflix doesn't look quite as genius. Redbox "proves" that there is still demand for physical media rentals. Blockbuster had a kiosk at my local grocery store for a while and that meant I could return a movie or rent a new one every trip if I so desired at something like $1.50 a pop. That was pretty compelling. Even more compelling would have been a store with a couple of people who really knew movies and could recommend things and with a deep, deep back catalog. Cutting the customer-facing square footage in half would allow each and every store to pack damn near every movie ever made in. Yeah it might take a guy a minute or three to head to the back and pull the movie you're looking for, but it could be done. The ownership of the movies is a model that Netflix SORELY wishes they had at the moment. Netflix is publicly traded. And because they're publicly traded it means they have to file financials. And filing financials means a profit & loss kind of statement. And because Netflix doesn't actually OWN much IP, it means they have to rent or lease it. And that means the studios which own the IP that Netflix desperately needs to stay in business are perfectly informed of Netflix's financials. So they know just how much they can squeeze Netflix for every time a contract negotiation comes up. Blockbuster would not be in the same position because they would own the catalog. Purchases are expensive, but over any 20 year period they might be cheaper than renting.